tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN December 20, 2011 6:00am-7:00am EST
conference, it does not send it directly to the president. that is not the issue. are you going to agree or disagree to the senate amendment to the house bill? >> a no vote does not send it to the president. >> if i could reclaim my time. i have reclaimed my time. it is obvious that you have come to a conclusion that the senate is not going to appoint, the -- not going to appoint conferees, the president as a
request that we complete our work -- the president's request that we complete a work before we end this year has not taken place. that is your position, it cannot support our effort -- that is your position, to not support our efforts. to have this body work with the senate to make this happen. you have come to a different conclusion. >> may i give my conclusion? >> i would be happy to yield. >> thank you very much. my conclusion is that you are afraid to have a vote because you are afraid you would lose. it is a simple request we have. >> i appreciate your opinion. >> i think i speak for my colleagues -- what that is your opinion. -- >> that is your opinion. >> do not put words in my mouth. >> i did not think that going to the conference is the same as
concurring with the senate bill. >> i think i have said it the rally. -- it thoroughly. let me yield to my colleague. i'm have to deal to mr. mcgovern, my friend. >> i think you are doing a masterful job of explaining the situation. people can make suppositions about things all night long. i do not think that it's as very -- that gets us very far in terms of making suppositions. well i am prepared to stay here all night long, i would prefer that we vote on the motion we have on the floor. i believe that continuing this kind of discussion on suppositions and hypothetical situations is a waste of time. what we need to do is take a vote and move things along and see where they turn out.
that is the proper thing to do. >> let me reclaim my time. the no yield to mr. mcgovern. -- and i will yield to mr. mcgovern. i concur with my friend about the goal of getting their. i am not going to deny anyone an opportunity of being heard. i am not prepared to stay here all that. -- all night. i hope to get some rest this evening. i have heard the argument. i may need to hear them again. i suspect i will. with that, i will yield to mr. mcgovern. >> thank you. i am sorry you think this debate is a waste of time. for those of us who feel a great injustice is being done here, it is important to have the record clear. the chairman has done a masterful job trying to convince
people. that they are doing something that they are really not for. all my colleagues have been trying to point out that no matter how you slice this, this issue will not be resolved tomorrow. middle-class families will not be given a tax cut tomorrow, the 160 million families, they will -- 2 million -- to wonder million people rely on unemployment insurance will not have that assurance tomorrow. 48 million seniors wondering about health care coverage, that issue will not be resolved tomorrow. what we are doing today, we have a rule that says, it does not allow us to convert tomorrow -- confer tomorrow, solving this -- concur tomorrow on the senate substitute, thereby solving this once and for all. i hope that we would work with of leaders to try to work out
-- i hope that we would work with our leaders to try to work out something that was acceptable. in a bipartisan way, to a majority in the house and senate. so that and we come back here on january 17 we extend that bill for a year. we had the payroll tax cut bill of last week. you had your opportunity to present your pay-fors. it was filled with so many hot- button issues it was going nowhere. this compromise from the senate has things i do not like. this keystone pipeline is an upgrade to me. -- outrage in this bill. i am willing to swallow that pill if it means middle-class families will get a tax cut. i will say, we have a habit of always pointing fingers and pulling the senate -- and blaming the senate.
this is one time the senate came to an agreement. it is not the agreement that all this would have liked. it was a two-month agreement. 89 senators voted for it. 39 republicans. i think that is a big deal. when the american people want us to come together, when people come together, it may not be everything, it is something we should be glad about. what is that is what is happening here. -- what is bad is what is happening here. tomorrow, middle-class families will not get an extension of the tax cut. unemployed people will not be given the insurance. senior citizens will be wondering whether they get the health care they need. >> let me say i think it is important to note that the bill that passed the senate has
already been reported by bloomberg news as being unworkable. the idea that we are going to have this two-month extension to continue is impossible. -- preposterous based on these independent analyses. >> i appreciate the gentleman pointing that out. nobody other than you believe it is unworkable. >> it is not me. is the independent groups. but i will have evidence of that in a minute. -- >> i will have evidence of that in a minute. >> i do not know what is going on, we are dealing with people puzzle lives. -- we are dealing with people's lives. people watching this are wondering what we are doing here. the senate came to an unprecedented bipartisan agreement. we were told the speaker was for this bill before he was against it. now everybody is against it. we cannot even get an up or down vote.
on concurring with the senate, we are being denied that tomorrow. no matter what we do, we cannot solve this issue. i think that is an outrage. this is not the way, which should run. -- way congress should run. i think this is a clever way of beginning around doing our work. i have no idea. i do not know what is going to have been at it tomorrow. what i fear is that, not much. -- what is going to happen after tomorrow. what i fear is not much. some people will pay the price. not anyone on this committee, but the people that we represent, and that is an outrage. let's let me thank the gentleman. -- >> let me thank the gentleman. i share the upgrade for working -- the outrage of jeopardizing working americans to have the tax benefits they deserve and the unemployment benefits that are necessary. it is important for us to realize we have passed two conference reports in the last few weeks. the idea of saying that nobody
understands what is happening, we are following a regular order. anyone who wants to support the senate position would vote no on going to the conference. and that is in support of the senate position. i think it is important for us to realize that these are independent organizations. they have come forward with this statement. the national payroll reporting consortium, we will get a copy of this, they have said that what the senate has done is unworkable. what has the department of treasury said this is unworkable? -- >> has the department of treasury said this is unworkable? as the administration? >> inexcusable was the term. i think these arguments that had been put forward the day
before yesterday by the president of the united states who said it would be in -- inexcusable for congress not to further extend the tax cut for the rest of the year. house democrats will return to take up this legislation. we will keep up the fight to extend the provisions for a full year. [inaudible] for a full year. that is what we are doing. there is no senate bill. it is a house bill. what we have our senate amendment. -- are senate amendments. [inaudible] if we can move expeditiously and get to conference, the speaker is prepared to appoint conferees. we are prepared to begin working to ensure -- we may have to work through this week and
next, we are prepared to work to ensure that no one has the benefits jeopardized. right, mr.absolutely mcgovern. we are playing with people's lives. we are trying to do our best. i am happy to further yield. >> i have been informed that the association you mentioned did not take a position on this bill. >> they said it was complicated but they were willing to do the work. what i do not know why we cannot have an up or down vote. >> the term used is unworkable. did and what i am told is -- it is complicated, they did not say they could not do this work. >> let me yield. that is the debate. what's i would like my own time. -- >> i would like my own time. >> let me yield to mr. sessions first. >> i think a good number of
people, you may have felt like this is not what you wanted. they should understand this. republicans hold a position that we believe we should continue doing our work and it could last a whole year. -- it should last a whole year. house republicans believed in our bill. that we should move our work through. there is much in decision that always takes place in the political process. one thing we are being told is congress does not make decisions. they argue, thus, and fight. we believe that getting our work done to the end of september of next year is the right thing to do so that we can quit fighting. so that we conclude the debate and tell employers and employees, so that they can
make long-term decisions. that's why it is a two year plan. then we went through a process. >> a two year plan. >> two years. for dr. reimbursement. then we believe we would handle this as we did. and get it to the senate and give them plenty of time. the process is, and always has been, we do what we do, they do what they do, we give it to them, they are the ones who rejected what we were doing. we are saying, we want to go to conference. in no way is this meant to diminish any group of americans. we feel we are trying to do the right thing by making a year- long effort.
we believe this is the right thing to do. >> i would yield that my time. -- back my time. >> do you believe if we say we will go to conference, that is the end of it? the senate will have to do it? harry reid says he is not going to do it. >> that is his business. >> there have been mixed reports on this issue. >> let me ask you this, what is the end point here if we send back something to them and they do not do it, we have achieved nothing. >> if i could reclaim my time, let me say we all studied, it is required that the two houses come together. that is what we are doing.
we're following a regular order. >> you think you are requiring them to come back? >> we are proceeding with regular order. with that, let me deal to mr. would have. -- woodall. >> this is my first year on the committee. what's really? -- >> really? [laughter] >> i shared a passion for the importance of this issue. i thought i understood the ranking member to say that when we were going through regular order, the two-month solution is not as good as a one-year solution. when we asked the senate to come back you said the senate majority leader has indicated he is going to refuse to come back? >> he refuses to reopen this bill. maybe you can answer this for me. what is the end product?
they are not coming back. if we go to a conference, we have achieved nothing. reich? -- right? >> i hope the information has been misreported. what it has been reported far and wide. the chairman has the time. >> i asked for my own time. i want to make sure that we do not misunderstand or misquote senator reid. i want to ask what senator reid said. senator mcconnell and i negotiated a compromise at speaker boehner's request. i will not reopen negotiations
until the house follows through and passes the agreement that was negotiated by republican leaders. and supported by 90% of the senate. finally he says, i have always thought that a one-year law -- i have always saw a one-yearlong extension. i am happy to continue to negotiate -- always sought a one-year long extension. i am happy to continue to negotiate. once we have made sure that middle-class families will not wake up to a tax increase on january 1. before we reopen negotiations, on a yearlong extension, the house of representatives must protect middle-class families by passing the overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that republicans negotiated and was approved by 90% of the senate -- that is the exact quote. >> it is fascinating to listen to you and mr. mcgovern speak
here in support. you are going to have another opportunity. yeah, yeah, yeah. mr. mcgovern was a supplementary of them. -- was complimentary of them. they are burying views on our friends in the other body. we all know the story, they are not the enemy, they of the opposition, the enemy is the senate. there are people who are unhappy with the senate. it jeopardizes, after two months, it does what they say they did not want to happen. there is no guarantee that we will by kicking the can down the road, that kicking the can down the road is not acceptable.
we have a deadline we believe strongly that if the senate will do its job we can ensure that no american will see their taxes go up and we will see a two-year extension. >> thank you. i thank my friend from florida. i appreciate the majority leader in the senate defending the senate. we have said that rep the year. it is worthless for the house to take action on a bill and send it to the senate and have the senate do nothing. that is not a valuable exchange. to have the senate majority leader say we want the house to take action, it seems natural to me. we will be taking that action tomorrow. in the lines of something you and i were talking about, my
understanding of the way this has operated is that the rules committee is going to be close to midnight, it is going to jam something through, it is going to weigh the same day consideration of authority, and it is going to be a 2:00 a.m. vote. people will walk out the door. i believe we can do better. we talked about the material that was handed out. i think that material was handed out because that has been the way the place has operated. we have fought for regular order. i wish it has been something we have done collectively. we would be invested in it collectively. there was a bad that we could have taken. i am proud we chose the better path. the better path which is to say, let's debate is under regular order tomorrow, let's
not do it in the middle of the night, let's not waive any same- day consideration. i hope we can look at this as a step forward. there was a better way to do this and we spend it. i would say to the majority leader in the senate, there is a better way to provide certainty. we have said that this is with $1,000 -- worth $1,000. we can do better. what do i have to believe? i have nothing to believe that. we can do better. we have to challenge them to do better. this has been a problem that is coming down the road.
folks knew, when you voted on it last december, we knew this day would come. to say to families in my district that they have to sit back and wait, that they have to fight the insipid before another two months-- uncertainty for another two months. because we cannot solve something in a year, but just give 60 more days in an alice- in-wonderland way? come on we can do better. if it takes work the next two weeks, i am in. -- working the next two weeks, i am in. >> i have some and people asking me to yield to them. you already did ask me to deal. -- yield. >> i am asking for my time. trichet and not yield to my own colleagues? >> by all means.
>> i am asking for my time. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i appreciate the reading, the comment from mr. reed. it gives the american people a good perspective on the attitude of the majority leader in the senate. the last time i looked, mr. reid was just the majority leader. he is not the king of this country. for him to say we must pass the ir bill is an assumption. i am going to invite you to help me on the procedures if i get off track. i invite you to speak up. we have talked about the need to get back on regular order.
i do think that well 6 is not being caught in a country -- while civis is not being taugh in ou country, most people understand the bill passes one house, goes to another house, have to be passed in the same form, if it does, it goes to the president. if it is modified, it does that to the house of origin. -- it goes back to the house of origin. if the house of origin does not agree with the change, then we have a conference. settle the differences between the two bills. the difference between the bill we passed in good faith last week with a bipartisan vote, all the good bills have passed this year. it went to the senate and was
modified drastically. i appreciate the fact that we pointed out that the president has asked for a one-year extension. he has said it is inexcusable for the congress cannot pass a one-year extension. ms. pelosi has said it is unacceptable. even mr. hoyer has spoken out on behalf of this and said we need a one-year extension. >> would you deal? -- yield. i am going to yield and then i'm going to recognize mr. hastings. >> tomorrow, when we have the motion to go to conference, we will be calling regular order. -- following regular order. we will be doing what we all
think we should do. the fact that 80% of the senate republicans voted for what was sent over here, which i think is abysmal, is not binding on republicans in the house of purpose of this at all. -- house of representatives at all. just because they made that decision does not mean that we have to support it. they do not speak for us. we are two independent bodies. i am thankful to the founders for treating the house of representatives -- creating the house of representatives. to be the people's house. >> many other senators are in fact support of of the measure
that came out of the senate. we can be unhappy with them for having done that, but they are supportive of resolving the differences between the house- measure and the senate-passed measure. we can still be hard on them but we need to give them their due. gosh i think that is appropriate to be said. that is probably the case. even if they voted for a bad bill, they support regular order. for four years, we didn't have a conference. people have forgotten what it is like to go the conference and have regular order. i think it is wonderful that we are going to be doing that and i want you to know that i will support the rule and the resolution, and i think it is rather frustrating to our
colleagues that we are pointing this out, and i hope, again, we can move on the motions had get to where we need ago. >> i will yield to mr. bishop and recognize mr. a thing. -- mr. hastings. we are still debating the rule. >> i would not be offended if you went to mr. hastings first. i am happy to receive that yield. this is one of those things that is an entertaining evening. in a perverse kind of way. i missed the closer and i guess i will miss castle. closer will have a second rerun. so i am ok right there. [laughter] i was amused if not amazed by mass slaughters opening statement. she had a psychic ability to
predict what we were going to do with the republicans want to vote. you probably would not have been here at 7:00 05 and the first place. >> i should have known better, you are absolutely right. >> i am always right, listen to me again. there are three reasons why i will not be voting for her motion. mr. hastings and i am in the middle of the middle-class. we are not for congressman, we are not as wealthy as the rest of you. a tax break for 20 days is nothing at all and it is almost worthless. it has to be a year. secondly, the pay for in the senate bill is totally unacceptable. the idea that they are going to come up with this pay for that will hurt middle-class
homeowners is totally unacceptable and that is why i will not be voting for the senate version to go through. no. 3, the process that the chairman has outlined here is the norm. it has been for years, sometimes we forget -- that there were four years where we did not see one. it has been a long time since i have seen one. you got me off my rhythm here, don't ever do that. what you have outlined here is the normal. that is the way things are supposed to be done. this is the traditional form in which we do these type of situations. for that reason, i will go on with what the chairman is out line. those of the three reasons i
will be voting no on mrs. slaughter's recommendation. >> i am happy to recognize my dear friend from fort lauderdale. >> i was not all that anxious, and i came in here -- how we got off on the wrong -- the agenda i received, it reflected that we were going to have an emergency meeting. in that particular provision, on the agenda as published, allows for a motion to concur with the said amendment of the middle class tax relief and job
creation measure. a motion to go to conference on h.r. 3630. is this the same thing that we are talking about now? >> most of that is the same, yes. i think my friend for yielding to me. we had retracted meeting at the republican conference. one of the things that we feel very strongly is listening to members. frankly, as i looked down the aisle, there are three members of this committee that offered recommendations that the republican conference, and we underscored the fact that the vote to go the conference doesn't have you disagreeing with the said amendments. if you want to support the senate amendments to the bill,
he would vote in opposition to going to conference. that cover the question that my friend has raised. it doesn't pay the bill immediately to the president's desk, but it is the opportunity for the full body and the members to do exactly what we said. >> that i ask another question and i will yield of you. when do we get a chance to agree? >> the opportunity that we are going to have -- you vote no on going to conference and it gives you a chance to agree with the senate action. the goal -- >> agree to do what? >> if you support the action that was taken in the senate by
virtue of voting no on going to conference, you are stating your support in the actions taken by the senate. let me just say that what we are trying to do, what we are trying to do here is to ensure that all of the issues are considered and we will have a chance to -- the real key is, let's get to conference and so we can resolve this. i know sweeping statements have been made about what the senate is going to do, and this is something that i remind myself of regularly. i happen to personally believe that the chairman of the rules committee should be on that the tent, that there will be no one ever in disagreement with the rules committee. the fact of the matter is, as much as i'd personally like that, we know very well that that is not the case and that
there are a lot of people with input here. when miss fox pointed out the fact the senator reid is not king, he can't tell us what to do here. we have this two-hour republican conference downstairs in which we discussed it. that is what later role in making this modification. >> i wasn't in your conference. but to show you how fast things as travel, i agree with your majority whip who was the person reported in your conference to have said, it's going to take this into the dead of night. >> of the gentleman will yield, that is not what happened. i will tell you that that is not what happened. it is not what was said.
the settlement that emerged was the same settlement that louise slaughter has raised with regularity. >> and still have high, and so have you at different times regarding doing things in the debt of the night. i applaud you and the republican conference, and i hope that it is a pattern different from the pattern you have established of continuing, as we go through things, to stall and then change. let me call lot where we are in this matter. -- chronolog where we are in this matter. mr. boehner sat in senator mcconnell's office and senator reid's office, senator mcconnell will have his proxy. they are promising to live by
whatever agreement he said it reached. i am committed to bringing the house back, and we can do it within 24 hours. it is from mcconnell unprepared by my staff in order for me to know -- a chronolog prepared by staff in order for me to know what is going on. on cnn, 12-18 in the washington post 12-17, the speaker reacted to reports that we may have to settle on a two-month extension. footnote right there. in january of 2009, house republicans will likely reject a two-month extension, citing a desire to avoid striking a
short-term deal and what impact of such a deal would have. just under two years ago, house republicans including some of the more conservative members were arguing that a two-month payroll tax would effectively stimulate the economy and he offered the measure in response to that. captured in this video leaving the caucus giving a high 5 to the senator from wyoming. later, senator mcconnell says that he obviously keep the speaker informed as to what i am doing. he calls the payroll tax cut compromise a bill designed in the past and said, i think, my friend, this is his floor speech. i thank my friend for the
opportunity to work together on something that could actually passed the senate and to be signed by the president. on saturday, just a few days ago, the speaker called the deal a good deal. and a victory. i saw it with my own eyes. he urged his caucus to declare victory and passed it on a conference call. evidently, some of you have a conference call on sunday had something happened during that conference call that causes us here could be here on monday doing what we are doing out. on saturday afternoon, the center gave his consent to allow the senate to adjourn for the year. once the party republicans on sunday in his caucus rebelled, the speaker reversed course and
is designing the deal that he supported 24 hours earlier. let's be frank with the american people. politics is what we do. politics is rank and right. especially at the end of session, and nerves are frayed and members are anxious. and in this particular instance, when you decided -- i said what scott brown commented, it is pretty serious although i think it is the alter ego, but the house republicans plan to scuttle the deal to help middle-class families and it is irresponsible and wrong. i appreciate their measure to extend it for a full year, but a two-month extension is a good deal when it means we avoid
jeopardize and the livelihood of middle-class americans. it threatens to increase taxes on hard-working americans. she said that she spoke out against this unprecedented two- month policy experiment. there wasn't in indication that the house would be in disagreement with the senate action and we are offering a measure in this agreement. nonetheless, we are here. what is paramount is that it not be allowed whole alaska. it is astounding that we come in here and put up these rules. the newer members don't know of what we do know. at this time, with the said
going on saturday night, though there were 10 that voted against it, they are all over the world. >> will the gentleman yield? >> not at this point. it may very well be that they will come back here, but there is nobody on this committee that can save the senate is going to be back here wednesday are that the senate is going to be back here thursday. >> i will yield to miss fox. i was not complete with my statement, but i will yield to dr. fox and i will yield to you. dr. hughes said they had adjourned, but i don't think they have. i read many reports that said that they are in session, and i
wanted to see if i was wrong on that. >> and they adjourned. and when the senate adjourns, they go everywhere. that is exactly where they are, all over the world. everyone in your conference knew that. >> i was trying to make the same point, but the senate should understand they have a responsibility. >> i want to applaud you will for doing what you're doing, but i caution you for your own good the you're committing political suicide. the reason you are is that you know the senate and you know how they act and you put this kind of pressure on them and you can reasonably expect the you got exactly what you wanted to. that is why we did not pass a payroll tax cut for unemployment
insurance or the box fixed that we should do permanently had stopped coming in here. that can that we have kicked down the road that is narrow way is to be returned on groundhog day. he will do it all over again. all of you know that is the case. the president has not yet signed the spending measure. you don't know exactly what he is going to do. but it is almost offensive to believe that 89 senators, mcconnell, andrea, having an action asked for by your speaker is now in the position of the wall saying that we are going to ping-pong something back over there that we know that we aren't going to pass. you are acting scrooge like, and everybody in america hot technology. >> the gentleman yield back the balance of his time, and let me just say there is no ping pong in the idea of going to
conference. >> i did not have a chance. thank you, mr. chairman. in the spirit of clarity, i am a supporter of the louie gohmert solution. the only 60-dissolution that he ever supported was a 60-day payroll tax holiday of all payroll taxes. not just 2%, but the entire 7.65% on employees and -- absolutely. 7.65% for employees, 7.65% for employers, and every nickel of income tax as well. the case that is being made is not that there is no such thing
as a good 60-day solution, the case that is being made is that we have been talking all year about getting the american people some certainty in their economic situations. and we have the opportunity to do that. i don't know the senate as you have described this and that, mr. hastings, and i will tell you straight from the heart, i have only the expectation that they will be back in town this week and next week appointing conferees and working with us to provide a long-term solution. there is no other thought in my mind that article 2, section 3 gives the authority for the president to call the senate back and if this is important as you will have made the case, by golly, you are exactly right.
there are baby steps we take to getting back to regular order. this house under both republicans and democrats have ceded too much authority to the executive branch. and i don't believe it, but i knew that the very idea that you could believe that he said things they run capitol hill that they can pass their bill and leave town offends me. as a representative of 1 million folks in the great state of georgia, i doubt think that is going to be the case. i am absolutely certain that they will be back. >> [inaudible] >> if they have done that before, it was wrong when they did it before. >> let me remind everyone that we are now considering the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from
rochester. i would like to wrap up this two-hour discussion, this slaughter amendment and to move ahead. >> alecky yield briefly to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> there is a breaking news alert from cnn in titled, house republicans will allow upper down vote to extend payroll tax cuts, and agent told cnn that the vote will likely be scrapped to avoid having house republicans who oppose a tax break for working americans. i read that with a great deal of frustration because, if you know, i don't know what we lose by passing the senate compromise.
we have guaranteed a year-long compromise, we're not gambling with of the lives of middle- class americans, senior citizens, and unemployed. >> and have one of our colleagues from texas who has been waiting patiently, would she have the opportunity to present on this matter? >> we're not having a hearing on it. ms. jackson has known that. >> whitby out of order for me to yield a moment to her? >> we are not having a hearing, said it would be out of order since we are not in hearing. >> we are in the midst of markup here, and since we are in the midst of marking of this rule, it is not permitted for representatives of the rules
committee to be heard. i appreciate miss jackson lee being here as always, there are no amendments that have been filed to this rule. >> missed slaughter just filed an amendment to the rule. oh, amendments under the rule. >> i will make my remarks briefly. what we're looking at here is the typical tax-and-spend republican policies. we saw the defense authorization bill with dollars in earmarked and pork. as the chairman confirmed, it was almost all deficit spending. ballot huge tax increase. spend money, raise taxes, we
have an enormous tax increase on the middle class on january 1. in 10 days, i am not sure how anybody expect this. we had the opportunity to do -- turn tax reduction. we have the opportunity by taking up the gang of six. we didn't do any of that so we have tax-and-spend, tax-and- spend. the republicans walked away from this. they have not brought any of those measures to a vote. he walked away from the super committee and they are here raising taxes. he can't raise taxes to solve the deficit. you have to start cutting spending. with record levels of government spending, you have to cut spending and raise taxes on the middle class to get out of it. i think this is the wrong direction for the country. i don't think this was the
mandate given to members of congress in this session. >> what we are attempting to do here is proceed with regular order to weaken have a house- senate conference that will allow us to do that. our deputy staff director sat very patiently awaiting the vote on the slaughter amendment. i hope very much that we have a chance, i suspect you have talked to reporters, but there is no need for him to be sitting there. the vote now occurs. those in favor -- mr. webster would like to be recognized. >> it is important that we talk about the policy here at some point in time of why this would be a bad move to concur with the senate amendment. what is wrong with it declared -- with it? youn't know how many of have to fill these out?
it is called a 941 quarterly federal report. every small business has to fill this out every quarter. this form has not changed in years and years and years. it makes it a little simpler when that takes place. under the paperwork reduction act notice, it says that 13 hours and 59 minutes learning about the law. 47 minutes, preparing and sending the form to the irs. one hour and three minutes. for whatever reason, maybe none of those senators has ever felt one of these out before. it is pretty sad if they haven't because they ought to read the forms that they produce.
so here, who have 14 or 15 hours worth of work to do this. every small business, which is going happen? law only last two months. every quarter is january, february, march. if they were doing anything constructive, they would have only done at four particular quarter. now there will have to be extra lines on here. they don't know of we are going to extend it or not, so all of these small businesses will be in jeopardy, not knowing when to fill them out. they may have allowed this film -- and this form or maybe another form. it is wrong. what you're doing to small businesses in this senate amendment is wrong.
you're hurting them desperately. i have had a business for 50 years, we do our own work. it is a small business. there are millions of us out there all over the country. are they tired of this kind of stuff we're all of a sudden, here is your form, but we don't know if this is your form. another one might have 10.4%, another might have 12.4%. you may have to fill out both and will might have to read the law. maybe it will take a couple hours, maybe 50 hours to keep the records. maybe it will take three or four or five hours to fill it out. small businesses don't have that kind of time to spend filling out federal forms because the congress failed to take into consideration what they do. we want to argue about the process.
the senate did this. the nine of them voted for it, so it must be right. the reason it is wrong is that it hurts millions of small businesses that will have to live within this period start a, -- within this. sorry, but this is a bad amendment. it is a bad idea to concur. >> of the vote now occurs. in my opinion, the no's have it. call the roll. [roll call vote]
this rule on the floor at 9:00 tomorrow morning. will we do one-minute's first? just shortly after 9:00 tomorrow morning, and i hope everyone has a great evening. we look forward to seeing you in the morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house will take up the
payroll tax extension beginning at 9:00 a.m. this morning. we will hear more about that in a moment. >> with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, the contenders looks back at than 14 men who ran for the president but lost but how long lasting impact on american politics. tonight, james g. blaine. wednesday, william jennings bryan. thursday, eugene debs. friday, charles evans hughes, chief justice of the united states. on saturday, al smith followed by a businessman and member of the liberal wing of the dod, wendell willkie. the contenders, every night at 10:00 a.m. -- 10:00 p.m. on c- span. >> coming up, the news phone calls and e-mails on "washington journal. the house announced it would not have an up and down vote on the senate bill extending the tax cut. cut. there